Sam Bankman-Fried has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his seven-count fraud conviction and approximately $11 billion forfeiture order after losing his appeal in June 2026.
Summary
- Sam Bankman-Fried has asked the Supreme Court to review his seven-count fraud conviction and sentence.
- The Second Circuit unanimously upheld his conviction, 25-year prison term and $11 billion forfeiture order.
- His petition challenges trial rulings admitting loss evidence while limiting defense testimony about potential repayment.
- Bankman-Fried argues the $11 billion forfeiture violates constitutional protections against excessive financial penalties and fines.
- The Supreme Court must grant certiorari before conducting any review of the underlying case merits.
CNN, which reviewed the petition filed on Sept. 10, reported that the former FTX chief wants a new trial over limits placed on evidence concerning FTX’s assets and the potential repayment of customers. He is serving a 25-year federal prison sentence imposed in March 2024.
The petition asks the justices to examine whether prosecutors could present evidence suggesting customers suffered large losses while the trial court restricted defense evidence about assets that might eventually cover those losses. Bankman-Fried’s lawyers describe the evidentiary rulings as unfair because net financial loss was not required under the fraud theory applied to the case.
His lawyers separately claim the $11.02 billion forfeiture violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The defense raised a similar constitutional argument before the Second Circuit, which rejected it when affirming the conviction, sentence and forfeiture.
Sam Bankman-Fried challenges how loss evidence was used
At Bankman-Fried’s 2023 trial, federal prosecutors presented evidence that FTX customer money had been transferred without authorization to Alameda Research and used for investments, loan repayments, political donations, real estate and personal expenses.
A jury in the Southern District of New York convicted him on seven counts involving wire fraud, conspiracy, securities fraud, commodities fraud and money laundering. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan later sentenced him to 25 years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.
Bankman-Fried’s Supreme Court petition focuses on the handling of financial-loss evidence. His defense claims FTX and Alameda were “temporarily illiquid” but owned enough valuable assets to repay customers over time. Later bankruptcy recoveries and creditor distributions form part of the argument, although they occurred after the conduct addressed at trial.
Prosecutors maintained that unauthorized use of customer deposits completed the fraud regardless of whether investments later rose in value. The Second Circuit accepted that position when it upheld Bankman-Fried’s conviction in June.
Jeffrey Fisher, an attorney representing Bankman-Fried before the Supreme Court, told CNN that evidence suggesting people lost money was “distracting and prejudicial” under a prosecution theory that did not require proof of an ultimate loss.
His statement represents the defense’s legal position. It does not alter the jury’s findings or the Second Circuit’s description of the trial evidence as “conservatively stated, robust.”
A 2025 ruling shaped the rejected appeal
The lower appellate court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Kousisis v. United States. The case concerned contractors who used false certifications to obtain a government bridge-painting contract involving requirements for disadvantaged businesses.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that a material lie used to induce a victim to enter a transaction involving money or property can support a federal fraud conviction even without an intent to cause net economic loss.
Applying Kousisis, the Second Circuit found that Bankman-Fried’s belief that customers might eventually be repaid did not provide a defense to unauthorized transfers. The court said the alleged fraud occurred when customer assets went to Alameda for purposes customers had not approved.
The new petition raises a narrower evidentiary question. Bankman-Fried argues that if actual loss was legally unnecessary, the government should not have been allowed to use loss evidence against him. If prosecutors could introduce it, his lawyers contend, the defense should have been permitted to offer evidence pointing toward eventual repayment.
The Second Circuit had already rejected his claim that the trial court issued one-sided evidentiary decisions. Its June opinion said the lower court acted within its discretion when excluding evidence about the later value of FTX-related investments.
Following the June ruling, the appellate court issued its mandate in August, formally returning jurisdiction to the district court and leaving the judgment in effect. As crypto.news reported, the mandate confirmed the 25-year sentence and forfeiture order.
The $11 billion forfeiture faces a separate challenge
Bankman-Fried’s petition asks the Supreme Court to review the forfeiture as a second question. Judge Kaplan ordered him to forfeit $11.02 billion under federal statutes covering proceeds connected to specified crimes and money laundering.
Before the Second Circuit, the defense argued that the amount had been calculated incorrectly and was grossly disproportionate to the offenses. His lawyers claimed the judgment could prevent him from earning a living after completing his prison sentence.
The appeals court acknowledged that $11 billion was a large sum, particularly when many creditors might receive payments from the bankruptcy estate. It found, however, that federal forfeiture law calculates the amount through proceeds obtained from criminal conduct, not solely through the victims’ remaining losses.
Examining the Eighth Amendment issue, the panel applied the Supreme Court’s test for deciding whether a forfeiture is grossly disproportionate to an offense. It found that Bankman-Fried had not meaningfully challenged the main factors used by the district court.
The panel further ruled that an inability to satisfy the judgment did not, by itself, make the order unconstitutional. Bankman-Fried now wants the justices to reconsider that conclusion.
FTX’s bankruptcy distributions remain legally separate from his criminal judgment. The estate has used recovered assets to pay eligible creditors under its confirmed Chapter 11 plan. In related coverage, crypto.news reported that FTX scheduled nearly $900 million for its fifth creditor distribution in July 2026.
Supreme Court review is not automatic
Filing a petition does not give Bankman-Fried another trial or suspend his sentence. The Supreme Court must grant certiorari before the justices consider the merits, and four of the nine justices must vote to hear the case.
The federal government will have an opportunity to respond. The justices may then grant the petition, deny it or request further briefing before making a decision. A denial would leave the Second Circuit’s judgment and the district court’s sentence in place without creating a new ruling on the legal questions.
If review is granted, the case could address the use of financial-loss evidence in prosecutions based on fraudulent inducement. The Court could choose to consider only one of the petition’s questions, including the evidentiary issue or the Eighth Amendment challenge.
Bankman-Fried previously sought relief through several lower-court arguments concerning trial evidence, jury instructions, access to potentially favorable material and his proposed advice-of-counsel defense. The Second Circuit rejected each basis for reversal in its 42-page opinion.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the petition’s merits. Its next public procedural steps may include assigning a docket number, setting a response deadline and distributing the petition for consideration at a private conference.
